# Republican Tax Plan Will Allow Churches to Become Political **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [November 2, 2017, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-tax-plan-will-allow-churches-to-become-political/800558 "2017-11-02T23:59:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2017, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-tax-plan-will-allow-churches-to-become-political/800558/1 "2017-11-02T23:59:44Z")
It appears the Republicans’ new tax plan includes the following: [Churches Permitted to Enter the Political Fray](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-church/republican-tax-plan-would-let-churches-enter-political-fray-idUSKBN1D22T7?il=0) - Reuters The article states in part: > [@](#): > > U.S. religious entities would be allowed to engage in political activity without the risk of losing their tax-exempt status under a Republican proposal to overhaul the tax code unveiled on Thursday, a move that could give influential community leaders more latitude to try to influence voters. > > The plan would eliminate a provision in the tax code known as the “Johnson Amendment,” which prohibits churches from using church resources to encourage voting for or against a candidate. A religious leader can currently endorse a candidate in their personal capacity, but they cannot do so within the confines of their church, mosque or synagogue or use their staff to help a candidate. > > Supporters say it will increase religious liberty. Opponents say it will allow political leaders to pressure churches and allow some churches to be turned into political operations. I am vehemently opposed to this. In my view, it’s a bald-faced end run around the separation of church and state. Churches have grown far more bold through the years in exercising their opinions in politics already, and I see no good coming from giving additional encouragement through favored tax treatment. I understand the separation between church and state to be fairly well established in our government, though not quite absolute. The new proposed exception in the tax code is contrary in spirit to the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment of the Constitution and as it has been repeatedly interpreted through rulings of the Supreme Court. Even in Zorach, the SCOTUS drew the distinction that the case did not establish a state religion or allow the use of public funds in furtherance of religious practice. Will this proposed amendment be challenged? Should it be allowed? It will certainly create even more division in our discourse. Curious to hear the thoughts of others. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-tax-plan-will-allow-churches-to-become-political/800558/2 "2017-11-03T00:04:58Z")
Sure, I’m opposed to it, but I’m not sure it will increase discord. It is so easy for money to flow into politics lately, I’m not sure how big of an effect this will have. Could imagine it making some areas more monolithic - making parts of Chicago, NY, and Boston even more Catholic. Making parts of the south even more Protestant. Of course, I favor taxing churches’ wealth. So I’m likely an outlier. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-tax-plan-will-allow-churches-to-become-political/800558/3 "2017-11-03T00:05:49Z")
The “separation of Church and State” is about the state not interfering with the Church and/or not endorsing a particular Church/Religions. Churches have always been able to advocate for politics, as long as they didn’t endorse candidates. This is not a big change, and is not really about SoCaS. It’s about specific political activity by tax exempt organizations, not just Churches. Johnson Amendment: > [@](#): > > The Johnson Amendment is a provision in the U.S. tax code, since 1954, that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Section 501©(3) organizations are the most common type of nonprofit organization in the United States, ranging from charitable foundations to universities and churches. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-tax-plan-will-allow-churches-to-become-political/800558/4 "2017-11-03T00:23:44Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > Sure, I’m opposed to it, but I’m not sure it will increase discord. It is so easy for money to flow into politics lately, I’m not sure how big of an effect this will have. > > Could imagine it making some areas more monolithic - making parts of Chicago, NY, and Boston even more Catholic. Making parts of the south even more Protestant. > > Of course, I favor taxing churches’ wealth. So I’m likely an outlier. I’m an outlier, too. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > The “separation of Church and State” is about the state not interfering with the Church and/or not endorsing a particular Church/Religions. Churches have always been able to advocate for politics, as long as they didn’t endorse candidates. This is not a big change, and is not really about SoCaS. It’s about specific political activity by tax exempt organizations, not just Churches. Johnson Amendment: That makes it even worse, then. I can think of a lot of tax exempt organizations that should not be political. Here’s one: [Project Appleseed](https://appleseedinfo.org/) I have no quarrel with their stated objective as a non-profit and have in fact benefited from their instruction. However, in my various contacts with them, I’ve come to view them as barely-disguised advocates for a homegrown militia. It is only 501(c)(3) restraint that keeps them from attaining such a political objective. Put it this way: I’ve never revealed my liberal atheist views at any event of theirs I’ve attended. I do believe the lifting of this restriction is going to divide us as a nation even further. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-tax-plan-will-allow-churches-to-become-political/800558/5 "2017-11-03T00:33:52Z")
Will it actually change much? In practice, I don’t think the law was ever enforced very strictly. (Does it even apply, as currently written/enforced, to _implicit_ statements about how to vote? Like, “vote for Congressman X” would be illegal, but what about something like “Call Congressman X and tell him you support his decision to support our children”?) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-tax-plan-will-allow-churches-to-become-political/800558/6 "2017-11-03T01:35:22Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > I’m an outlier, too. > > That makes it even worse, then. I can think of a lot of tax exempt organizations that should not be political. Here’s one: [Project Appleseed](https://appleseedinfo.org/) > > I have no quarrel with their stated objective as a non-profit and have in fact benefited from their instruction. However, in my various contacts with them, I’ve come to view them as barely-disguised advocates for a homegrown militia. It is only 501(c)(3) restraint that keeps them from attaining such a political objective. Put it this way: I’ve never revealed my liberal atheist views at any event of theirs I’ve attended. > > I do believe the lifting of this restriction is going to divide us as a nation even further. You’re saying they’ll be able to tell people that Republicans are more 2nd amendment friendly than Democrats? The cat will be out of the bag!! ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-tax-plan-will-allow-churches-to-become-political/800558/7 "2017-11-03T01:56:01Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You’re saying they’ll be able to tell people that Republicans are more 2nd amendment friendly than Democrats? The cat will be out of the bag!! No. Not saying that. Have you ever attended one of their events? ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-tax-plan-will-allow-churches-to-become-political/800558/8 "2017-11-03T02:00:10Z")
See I think I’m an outlier. Why should political speech be taxed in the first place? It’s a constitutionally protected right that people should be able to exercise regardless of how people choose to organize themselves. You talk about seperation of church and state but isn’t this an instance of the state imposing on the church? Telling them what they can put in their surman. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-tax-plan-will-allow-churches-to-become-political/800558/9 "2017-11-03T03:11:27Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > See I think I’m an outlier. Why should political speech be taxed in the first place? It’s a constitutionally protected right that people should be able to exercise regardless of how people choose to organize themselves. You talk about seperation of church and state but isn’t this an instance of the state imposing on the church? Telling them what they can put in their surman. Try looking at it the other way around. Say I set up shop in a storefront and folks start paying to listen when I open my mouth; maybe I’m a stand-up comic, maybe I sing? As I understand it, the specifics don’t much matter; what matters is, I’m getting taxable income – and if the money instead goes to some corporation I’d set up, then _it’s_ getting taxable income. Oh, and it can endorse a candidate for office, the same way I can; and it can spend its money on that, the same way I can; and et cetera. As I _also_ understand it, if I talk about religion and the audience’s cash goes to a ‘church’ that I set up – well, my ‘church’ can shrug and say “this is taxable income”, and endorse candidates and spend its money on 'em and so on; or my ‘church’ can, _instead,_ say “hey, don’t tax this income”, so long as it doesn’t endorse candidates or spend its money on that or whatever. Now, the way I see it, we wouldn’t be telling churches what they can put in their sermons if we simply got rid of the latter option; I’d sure appreciate it if you could explain to me why we should keep giving churches Option B in the first place, and _then_ explain why we should let them combine it with Option A. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-tax-plan-will-allow-churches-to-become-political/800558/10 "2017-11-03T04:01:58Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > Will it actually change much? In practice, I don’t think the law was ever enforced very strictly. It is openly defied by right wing churches, outright daring the IRS to do anything about it. Has been for many years. ---
**Author:** ![Quimby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/22d042/32.png) [@Quimby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quimby)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-tax-plan-will-allow-churches-to-become-political/800558/11 "2017-11-03T13:35:20Z")
I hadn’t heard this and it is complete bullshit. They want to get political let them pay into the Government. ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-tax-plan-will-allow-churches-to-become-political/800558/12 "2017-11-03T14:32:42Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Try looking at it the other way around. > > Say I set up shop in a storefront and folks start paying to listen when I open my mouth; maybe I’m a stand-up comic, maybe I sing? As I understand it, the specifics don’t much matter; what matters is, I’m getting taxable income – and if the money instead goes to some corporation I’d set up, then _it’s_ getting taxable income. Oh, and it can endorse a candidate for office, the same way I can; and it can spend its money on that, the same way I can; and et cetera. > > As I _also_ understand it, if I talk about religion and the audience’s cash goes to a ‘church’ that I set up – well, my ‘church’ can shrug and say “this is taxable income”, and endorse candidates and spend its money on 'em and so on; or my ‘church’ can, _instead,_ say “hey, don’t tax this income”, so long as it doesn’t endorse candidates or spend its money on that or whatever. > > Now, the way I see it, we wouldn’t be telling churches what they can put in their sermons if we simply got rid of the latter option; I’d sure appreciate it if you could explain to me why we should keep giving churches Option B in the first place, and _then_ explain why we should let them combine it with Option A. Would it make a difference if nobody at the church draws income from the church? Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-tax-plan-will-allow-churches-to-become-political/800558/13 "2017-11-03T14:44:41Z")
Most churches I know of already do involve themselves in some level of the political scene from allowing candidates and/or elected officials to visit for photo ops and talking up their campaigns to down-right naming candidates their priest/pastor thinks would be a good choice. The “Big C” Churches (denominations) avoid it for the most part but having been a voting member and volunteer at a couple Church-Wide Assemblies I can say it still goes on. So actually making it legal and above board? I don’t see too much of a drawback and the possible advantage that it will be more transparent in the end. ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-tax-plan-will-allow-churches-to-become-political/800558/14 "2017-11-03T17:10:46Z")
As mentioned above, right wing churches have defied the law for years and will continue to do so. They know the IRS won’t come after them, think of all the phony outrage on the right about the IRS supposedly targeting conservative groups during Obama. I’d imagine at most right wing churches, the vast majority of the congregation already votes a solid Republican ticket and the remainder of the people in attendance probably tune out the sermon if it gets political and pull out their mobile phone. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-tax-plan-will-allow-churches-to-become-political/800558/15 "2017-11-03T17:45:57Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > Would it make a difference if nobody at the church draws income from the church? Well, (a) kindly forgive, and possibly remedy, my ignorance; _are_ there a good deal of churches that do that? But, (b) speaking for myself, _no,_ at first blush, it wouldn’t make a difference to me; if there are two corporations – two ice-cream parlors, or two bicycle shops, or whatever – and plenty of people give money to each of 'em, I don’t think I’ve ever _cared_ whether the employees of one draw income from that corporation while employees of the other don’t. I’ve just figured, if each corporation has income, tax it the way you would any other corporation’s income; and let each corporation spend what’s left over on political ads for this or that candidate, if that’s what’s desired. (And don’t tax either corporation a penny more or less based on if they’re politically active, or on which candidates they endorse; just tax their income normally, and then they do as they please.) Why would I care whether folks who work there draw income from it? ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-tax-plan-will-allow-churches-to-become-political/800558/16 "2017-11-03T19:19:27Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > As I _also_ understand it, if I talk about religion and the audience’s cash goes to a ‘church’ that I set up – well, my ‘church’ can shrug and say “this is taxable income”, and endorse candidates and spend its money on 'em and so on; or my ‘church’ can, _instead,_ say “hey, don’t tax this income”, so long as it doesn’t endorse candidates or spend its money on that or whatever. ``` I think this is a little mixed up. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there all sorts of non-profit organizations that are tax-exempt, including political organizations. My understanding is that the Johnson amendment applies to any 501(c)(3) organization - and the important part as far as the churches, schools and charities go is that a contribution to a 501(c)(3) is tax-deductible to the *donor*. The problem is not so much that the churches will have to pay taxes on their income if they organize as some other sort of tax-exempt organization which allows political speech - the problem is that donations are likely to drop if they aren't tax deductible to the donor. ``` ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-tax-plan-will-allow-churches-to-become-political/800558/17 "2017-11-03T20:01:53Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well, (a) kindly forgive, and possibly remedy, my ignorance; _are_ there a good deal of churches that do that? But, (b) speaking for myself, _no,_ at first blush, it wouldn’t make a difference to me; if there are two corporations – two ice-cream parlors, or two bicycle shops, or whatever – and plenty of people give money to each of 'em, I don’t think I’ve ever _cared_ whether the employees of one draw income from that corporation while employees of the other don’t. > > I’ve just figured, if each corporation has income, tax it the way you would any other corporation’s income; and let each corporation spend what’s left over on political ads for this or that candidate, if that’s what’s desired. (And don’t tax either corporation a penny more or less based on if they’re politically active, or on which candidates they endorse; just tax their income normally, and then they do as they please.) > > Why would I care whether folks who work there draw income from it? Churches are non-profits and as such they don’t have income in the same way that a for-profit corporations do. Yes they take in money but that money is never paid out to owners/shareholders. It may interest you to know that political organizations, such as the DNC, are also non-profit and non-taxed. As far as churches not paying clergy I can’t speak for other churches but mine actually considers getting paid, or compensated in anyway, to preach is a fairly sinful activity. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-tax-plan-will-allow-churches-to-become-political/800558/18 "2017-11-03T20:21:16Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > That makes it even worse, then. I can think of a lot of tax exempt organizations that should not be political. What about the ACLU (of which I’m a card carrying member)? Why do people not consider the non-profits they like when they indicate that non-profits should but out of politics. ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-tax-plan-will-allow-churches-to-become-political/800558/19 "2017-11-03T20:53:42Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > I think this is a little mixed up. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there all sorts of non-profit organizations that are tax-exempt, including political organizations. My understanding is that the Johnson amendment applies to any 501(c)(3) organization - and the important part as far as the churches, schools and charities go is that a contribution to a 501(c)(3) is tax-deductible to the _donor_. The problem is not so much that the churches will have to pay taxes on their income if they organize as some other sort of tax-exempt organization which allows political speech - the problem is that donations are likely to drop if they aren’t tax deductible to the donor. A church does not need to be a 501(c)(3) to make contributions to the church tax-deductible. The rule for charitable tax deductions is contained in [IRC Section 170 “Charitable, etc., contributions and gifts.”](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/170) > [@](#): > > (a) Allowance of deduction > (1) General rule > > There shall be allowed as a deduction any charitable contribution (as defined in subsection (c)) payment of which is made within the taxable year. A charitable contribution shall be allowable as a deduction only if verified under regulations prescribed by the Secretary. > > … > > (c) Charitable contribution defined > > For purposes of this section, the term “charitable contribution” means a contribution or gift to or for the use of— > > (1) A State, a possession of the United States, or any political subdivision of any of the foregoing, or the United States or the District of Columbia, but only if the contribution or gift is made for exclusively public purposes. > > (2) A corporation, trust, or community chest, fund, or foundation— > > (A) created or organized in the United States or in any possession thereof, or under the law of the United States, any State, the District of Columbia, or any possession of the United States; > > (B) organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals; > > (C) no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual; and > > (D) which is not disqualified for tax exemption under section 501(c)(3) by reason of attempting to influence legislation, and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. > > A contribution or gift by a corporation to a trust, chest, fund, or foundation shall be deductible by reason of this paragraph only if it is to be used within the United States or any of its possessions exclusively for purposes specified in subparagraph (B). Rules similar to the rules of section 501(j) shall apply for purposes of this paragraph. > … Note that it does not say that the corporation, trust, etc must be a 501(c)(3) organization, it just says it must not be disqualified from being a 501(c)(3) for reasons of political activity. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2017, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-tax-plan-will-allow-churches-to-become-political/800558/20 "2017-11-03T21:17:56Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > What about the ACLU (of which I’m a card carrying member)? Why do people not consider the non-profits they like when they indicate that non-profits should but out of politics. I’m a card-carrying member of them, too. It’s not that I’m not considering them. I just don’t believe they will become a more political organization as a result of this change, if it comes into being. Their stated goal as indicated on their website is to “defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person by the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United States.” As recently as this year, they took up for white supremacists to defend their free speech rights. They are about as non-political an organization as exists, despite efforts made by some to paint them in those terms. I mentioned the Appleseed Project because my personal experience with them on a number of occasions left me feeling as if the only restraint that kept them from moving hinted-at goals into overt goals is their tax-favored status under 501(c)(3). They’d creep right up to the line with their rhetoric (which had nothing to do with being Republican despite **John Mace** ’s comments), then back away, citing the need to maintain their tax-favored status as the reason for the retreat. I found it worrisome, as did friends of mine who also participated in their shooting events. My extremely limited experience with churches leads me to believe there is a similar restraint at work within some of these religious communities. Whether the IRS strictly enforces it or not, the concern that they could nonetheless hangs over their heads. If one understands the erosion between church and state as the death of a thousand cuts, then I suppose I view this change to the tax code as a rather significant gash. (With apologies for egregiously-mixed metaphors.) We seem to take for granted a lot of the seemingly-little societal norms that create these important bifurcations that are foundational to American society. The more we allow them to erode, the more damage is imposed. At some point, we will lose the ability to rebuild them to their former strength. As a non-believer in a country that has traditionally protected secular norms within government, I am especially concerned over this one. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-tax-plan-will-allow-churches-to-become-political/800558.md?page=2)